Creationist Movement Goes Muslim

During a very different decade, the Muslim community has at least not had to deal with religious extremists who deny evolution and seek to distort scientific courses. Indeed, Muslim countries have a good record on scientific training and research. Now, a creationist movement has formed among extreme Muslim that mirrors our own Evangelical crusade. Islamic extremists can look to George Bush for support after his recent endorsement of the creationist “Intelligent Design” theory being taught in schools.

For example, Muslim creationist Adnan Oktar (who goes by the name of Harun Yahya) has produced an 850 page work entitled “Atlas of Creation” that is being distributed in Islamic countries. On his website,, he simply notes “Darwin’s claims were of course based on no scientific evidence or findings.” The movement is detailed in a Science journal article by Hampshire College’s Salman Hameed.

A shocking 40 percent of Americans reject evolution and only 47 percent of Americans accept say that they believe in it.

Share this:

Like this:

67 Responses

“A shocking 40 percent of Americans reject evolution and only 47 percent of Americans accept say that they believe in it.”

I wouldn’t put too much stock in those numbers. Poll and survey groups almost always skew their results in the direction they’re looking for, either by how they word their questions or who they choose as a sample group.

I’ve been asked questions about evolution v. creation by pollster before, and while I believe in evolution I was still tempted to answer “No” to the specific questions they asked.

George W. Bush is the finest counter-example I know to the notion of “Intelligent Design” on so many levels. Were that not enough, that the Andromeda Galaxy and our own will eventually collide resulting in the utter destruction of both should put an end, once and for all, to this backward notion of ID, but alas it hasn’t since I suspect that same 40% of the population have no idea that we live in the Milky Way Galaxy.

I know it’s not related but this just hit me about the Saxbe fix and its effect on earnings parity in the cabinet: Can’t Congress just vote again to raise the salary for Secretary of State once Hillary vacates her Senate office? If Hillary has no hand in the new vote it should be constitutional.

As a reformed Creationist (And a really obnoxious one at that) I have to say that the system that Evangelicals use to indoctrinate people is MUCH more effective in creating believers (versus people who just do lip service) than threats of death. It might have been unique to me, but I found myself thinking in full blown Young Earth Creationist mode long after I figured out I was an Atheist.

There’s also the off chance that our solar system would survive the collision, but only to get thrown out into deep space. Of course by that point our sun would be dying and god knows what humans will be doing, but it would be pretty neat to see a galaxy collision from the inside.

I think it was Paul Sereno, a paleontologist I heard interviewed, who said he was raised as a creationist and that’s what put him on the path to perdition. The interviewee was speaking about the frequency with which the creationism was brought up at church and home. He was taken to see those lying fossils but that’s what made him doubt what he was taught. The fossils don’t lie! He said the fossil record was clear to him, even as a child, and creationism just didn’t make sense no more. Your statement make me think of that.

The funny thing to me is these “creationists” can’t seem to correlate science with a belief in a God. Einstein did. So did Aristarchus and Newton. If there is a god then he gave us brains to figure out the cosmos around us. And as we do we learn things, like the earth is NOT 6000 years old, but 4.5 BILLION years old.

We learn the earth is NOT the center of the universe, but merely a little blue marble in the far corner of an insignificantly small galaxy, in a sea of galaxies and dark matter.

We learn that man’s body did not “poof” appear on the planet but was developed over time.

And knowing that we’re left with the statement “so?”. So what? Why do religionists feel the need to restrict the nature in which their god can do his work? If there is a God then surely he can create us, and the universe(s) how he so chooses, and who is puny man to question it?

The bible is very vague on the subject of creation, and is written in the understanding of those who wrote it. No where do I find an incompatibility with a belief in a deity and an understanding of science.

One of the ways that our ancient progenitors actually were more intelligent than many of us today, is their sophistication in the use of metaphor. Genesis is almost entirely about metaphor and that was the way it was understood by the people of that time. The same was also true of the Hellenic, Egyptian and Hindu pantheons, they were all metaphors representing lessons in living and the philosophy of how the universe works. It is laughable that the fundamentalists of all faiths believe themselves to be the repository of the truth of their religions, when in reality they don’t have a clue as to what their religion is really about.

Mike Spindell
1, December 12, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“One of the ways that our ancient progenitors actually were more intelligent than many of us today, is their sophistication in the use of metaphor. Genesis is almost entirely about metaphor and that was the way it was understood by the people of that time”

That’s exactly right. The ancient Jew’s spoke in a figurative language, full of metaphor, idioms, poetic similitudes, etc, not to mention the translations of the Codices we have were done by Catholics with an axe to grind. Language interpretations were loose at best, and not precise. A common example of this is the misinterpretation of what is commonly referred to as “the 10 Commandments”, and the commandment against killing. Christian bibles clearly say “thou shall not kill”. Problem is, they say that after giving instructions on how to kill, both for slaughtering of sacrifical beasts and orders to kill in battle. Well, the answer is obvious. The word was mistranslated by the King James translators. The original Hebrew word used was “Ratsach”, which means “Murder of Human” not “kill”. The translators missed the mark and now millions and millions of people are reciting an incorrect verse. And that’s just one in thousands of examples of mistranslations and improper use of words. Any first year Seminary student knows that.

Waynebro,
How true. No one would ever call me learned in the study of religions, but the truth is so obvious. Re: your comment it has always interested me as a bystander, is how the Protestants arose in opposition to Catholic Christianity, yet for the most part accept the Canon and the text redaction’s made at the Council of Nicaea. There are far too many examples of mistranslations from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to cite. Yet as you noticed, Neocon Preachers are oblivious to the centuries long debates being carried on by biblical scholars and theologians.

Amen to that Mike. I think anyone with the IQ of a dishrag and older than 21 should be able to see that these “preachers” are little more than used car salesmen with a bible instead of a Buick.

They don’t actually teach old languages or historical context at these “bible Universities”. They teach elaborate fairy tales and political dogma, in between begging for peoples money. I think if you said “Masoretic Text” or “Codex Vaticanus” to one of these born again neocons nutjobs they’d think you were calling them a dirty word or something.

They actually get angry at the introduction of knowledge, and their pastors teach them to suspect and deride those who as they put it, get “technical” with the scriptures. They see knowledge as evil, and that creates a wall of stupidty that permits such ridiculous beliefs such as the world is 6000 years old, or Fred Flintstone was based on a historical character.

Instead of a hysterical one.

And the really funny thing, to me anyway, is the Jesus of the synoptic gospels warned his followers of such “wolves in sheeps clothing”, who like the Pharisee’s of his time used the scriptures for their own monetary gain. You’d think at least some of them would have picked up on that by now.

I guess that’s why their preachers keep them bogged down in the Old Testament, instead of the book they’re supposed to be reading.

And that’s how you end up with moronic security moms like Monica Goodling being placed in positions of great power, ordering around and deciding the fates of hundreds of more eminently qualified scholars of law, thanks to idiot factory’s like “Messiah U” who hand out college degrees in exchange for memorizing scriptures and swearing allegiance to the neocon plan for global domination.

You’re not thinking in terms of percentages. A properly pious pogrom prompts people to pay precious praise. Excruciating evisceration will eventually eliminate every evolutionist enemy. Never naysay the nerve of this nefarious notion’s nominees. It indicates ill that Islam has implicitly incited this insipid institution. Surely, safely should not suddenly stop to sift sectarian subjects superficially.

When you kill everyone who disagrees with you, no one is left to tell you that you’re wrong. I don’t subscribe to that philosophy but there are people who feel their morally justified to use it.

WAYNEBRO:
Einstein was not a believer in an anthropomorphic god. He said: “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” He also said: “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”

Hi everyone. I wanted to ask everyone to try to keep the posts civil. I have not been following the entries recently due to litigation. However, we should dial down a bit. We love spirited exchanges but this blog values civil discourse with a minimum of personal attacks.

I am now off to hoist my cherished ten-foot-inflatable Holiday Penguin on top of my house — to my wife’s utter embarrassment. It is a must . . . no a calling.

Actually, I almost came off the roof. I keep forgetting that when “Pengi” is fully inflated, there is not enough room for both of us. Death by inflatable Penguin is one of the least researched areas of fatal accidents.

“Well I guess it’s lucky for me then that I never said he believed in an “antropomorphic god”, isn’t it?”

*************
What you said was: “The funny thing to me is these “creationists” can’t seem to correlate science with a belief in a God. Einstein did. So did Aristarchus and Newton. If there is a god then he gave us brains to figure out the cosmos around us.”

I am unaware of any non-anthropomorphic god that has “brains,” but I keenly aware of some recent posters who repeatedly try to demonstrate to the rest of us that they do not.

mespo727272
1, December 13, 2008 at 10:12 am
WAYNEBRO:
“*************
What you said was: “The funny thing to me is these “creationists” can’t seem to correlate science with a belief in a God. Einstein did. So did Aristarchus and Newton. If there is a god then he gave us brains to figure out the cosmos around us.”

I am unaware of any non-anthropomorphic god that has “brains,” but I keenly aware of some recent posters who repeatedly try to demonstrate to the rest of us that they do not”

Then you should include yourself in the latter, as if you go back and try actually reading what I wrote instead of reposting it and putting your “spin” on it, you’ll discover that I said “IF” there is a god then he gave “US” brains.

I meant only that only a life being can only give something that it already possesses. For god to give (which is a human trait) he must necessarily possess (another human trait). Your apparently “invigorated” quote from Einstein is a far cry from the Santa Claus god you implied and what Einstein envisioned and you likely know that. Running from the import of your words isn’t really cowardice, but it’ll do until the real thing comes along.

“I meant only that only a life being can only give something that it already possesses.”

Well that’s an interesting belief system you have there.

I made my mom a clay ashtray in the 1st grade.

I did not however possess clay, or the ashtray on my being.

Of course I never said anything about a “life being” , nor did I ever suggest Einstein believed in one. That was your fabrication once more, obviously based on your lack of reading comprehension skills.

“Your apparently “invigorated” quote from Einstein is a far cry from the Santa Claus god you implied and what Einstein envisioned and you likely know that.”

Once again I attribute your lack of reading comprehension skills to a failure of our public school system.

Here, since you clearly are “special” in that respect I’ll repost what I ACTUALLY said.

So it’s not muddied with your inventions.

I SAID: “The funny thing to me is these “creationists” can’t seem to correlate science with a belief in a God. Einstein did. So did Aristarchus and Newton.”

I never said anything about the NATURE of that God, nor did I ever imply it.

I also never said anything about Einstein actually “BELIEVING” in that god, as you have repeatedly asserted.

I said merely he “correlated science with a belief in a god”, MEANING he saw the allowance for both.

If you actually try reading Einsteins writings, instead of googling quotes to try to insult me, (for reasons yet to be determined), you will find that he considered himself agnostic, neither supporting nor denying the existence of a higher intelligence.

THEN, I said this;

“If there is a god then he gave us brains to figure out the cosmos around us.”

A SEPERATE statement from the one about Einstein, Newton and Aristarchus. One that I was making, and never even suggested had anything to do with them.

And note, I said “IF” there is a god.

I did not say there was a god. I did not say I believed in a god. And I certainly did not imply anything as to the nature of that god, other than IF there is one, THEN he gave us brains.

Not that it’s any of your business mister, but I personally am agnostic and neither believe, nor disbelieve in the existence of a god, intelligence or Santy Claus.

Oh and as for the “cowardice” claim?

I would consider cowardice someone like you hiding behind a keyboard, fabricating lies about others and attributing YOUR meanings to their words in an apparent desperate attempt to insult them.

Penji may be a Thanksgiving Day reject given his size and evil disposition.

We are now off to the Cub Scout regata with the Turley Armada: three entries. Aidan can claim the unique status of the only hairy vessel (covered in faux wolf fur) while Jack is racing a Kirby vessel. Ben is going for speed with a British cutter.

Once I unstick my fingers from the Crazy Glue, I will be blogging in the morning.

Oh and by the way, since I’ve been accused of being a troll and being Seamus and Bob Esq, (and a coward), I’ve attached my actual photo, and registered with WordPress, not to mention using my real name “WAYNE” in my handle.

If anyone would like to insult, ridicule or challenge me further by either fabricating their meanings for my words, inventing belief systems for me or by suggesting I am some sort of evil troll, then at least now you can do it to my face, so to speak.

“A SEPERATE statement from the one about Einstein, Newton and Aristarchus. One that I was making, and never even suggested had anything to do with them.”

********************
I’ll re-read your prose to try to gain some insights into your feelings on the purpose of grammar and your reason for inclusion of unrelated thoughts within the structure of a single paragraph. I’ll work on that while you get those debonair jpegs of you distributed all about the ‘net.

By the way, Einstein (AE) was no agnostic in his earlier days; he was more impressed with “god as structure” revealed in nature, a view also espoused in Spinoza’s writings. This is what one of Einstein’s colleagues, Max Jammer, called a “natural theology.” On the subject of Einstein and God, Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said: “Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian. I do not believe these references to God can be dismissed simply as a façon de parler, for God had a deep, if rather elusive, significance for Einstein which was not unimportant for his life and scientific activity. It indicated a deep-seated way of life and thought: “God” was not a theological mode of thought but rather the expression of a “lived faith.” Einstein himself said: “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

AE later professed agnosticism but it was the skepticism of one who rejected anthropomorphic answers to the mystery and orderly beauty of creation, not one who was uncertain of the existence of some form of divinity. In the mid 1950’s he wrote:”I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”

Citations are available it you need them, but this is the prevailing scholarly view of his philosophy. I can find no support for the thoughts that Einstein correlated nature with a belief in god (which is true) with the unconnected one that somehow such a god “gave” brains to anyone (directly implying anthropomorphism.) This dichotomy is certainly what you now say, but perhaps you will forgive a reader such as me making the assumption that sentences placed one before the other somehow express a coherent, related assertion.

I anxiously await your profound, professorial, and mannered reply to these comments. Of course, we would all defer to your views given the credentials, talent, and visage you have displayed here.

Please stop. You are an intelligent man. You present interesting and well thought out arguments. Your quips make me laugh so hard I can’t stand it. This is descent into madness. I have learned from the back in forth in your posts with Waynebro. I just can’t stand the personal attacks. This blog can be such a wonderful, fun place to argue and learn. You are important to me and I’m asking for unitary disarmament (not of argument, but of attacks) if that’s what it takes to keep this blog a source of great amusement but true learning.

I’ll re-read your prose to try to gain some insights into your feelings on the purpose of grammar and your reason for inclusion of unrelated thoughts within the structure of a single paragraph. ”

You mean as opposed to inventing meanings for me that fit nicely with your own positions so you can mockingly debate those meanings while simultaneously calling me stupid and a coward?

Yes, that would be refreshing indeed.

However at this point I’d say don’t bother. After all, if you couldn’t tell the difference between the statements about correlation of belief and actual belief, or you didn’t see a difference between the summary statement -“IF there is a god then he gave us brains” and the statement about Einstein, Newton and Aristarchus, which all were part of an OVERALL thought, that is, that science doesn’t necessarily negate a belief in a god or higher power, then you’re second look is not likely to produce any better results. Especially is you’re going to further insult me by mocking the grammatical quality of my comments.

And if you think I’m wrong there, then please explain to us which one of the THREE figures I referenced that you thought that last sentence was supposed to be attributed to.

Oh and as for your smug arrogant and downright rude speaking of me in the third person to your friend Patty as if I weren’t even here, I neither asked for nor desire any “benefit” from you. I require nothing more from you than an apology for attacking my words, calling me stupid and a coward and as for the rest, your “benefit of the doubt” that is, it is irrelavent to me. I neither asked nor desired your sanction, merely that you don’t misquote me and then insult me based on your misquotes.

When you do so, I’ll correct you just as I did here.

JILL:

I could learn a lot from you. Last night Patty called you trailer trash, right out of the blue, yet you did not react or respond in any way. I’m going to have to work on that, and in the future when Patty or her friends decide to walk into a thread and start calling me names and insulting my intelligence without my having spoken a word to them, then I will need to draw on your example, and try and just ignore her and hopefully the blog owner will see the true nature of some of these self proclaimed “superior” individuals.

When I was at Cambridge taking a class, one of the things I learned is that argument need not be personal or demeaning, but pointed assertions do get the creative juices flowing. As you can see from the exchange with Waynebro, both of our positions have been clarified and refined to the point where they begin to converge. We have both distilled our rough thoughts into a coherent position, and we have goaded each other into enough research where presumably we both have learned something. A little chapped feelings means nothing in this world, but being able to challenge, and accept the challenge of, differing viewpoints without resort to simple name-calling is important since on big questions of the day we are usually left with the stark choice of either conversation or coming to blows. That the exchanges strive for wit at the expense of courtesy shouldn’t distress anyone since that kind of dialogue is as old as our Aegean intellectual ancestors. I don’t take it personally and I suspect neither does Waynebro. If he does, that will soon wear off if he wants to stay around. It is the Socratic way of learning. That we don’t silently suffer foolish, contradictory, or ideological assertions is, in my humble opinion, also what makes Professor Turley’s blog worth joining into in the first place. It is why lawyers shake hands after the most grueling of cases since both advocates know they are better for the fight. Waynebro appears a worthy rival and he has demonstrated that he can hold his own.

When I was at Cambridge taking a class, one of the things I learned is that argument need not be personal or demeaning, but pointed assertions do get the creative juices blah blah blah. As you can see from the exchange with Waynebro, both of our positions have been clarified and refined to the point where they begin to converge. We have both distilled our rough thoughts into a coherent position, and we have goaded each other into enough research where presumably we both have learned something”

Well I did learn something, thats for sure.

I learned that some people who were fortunate enough to attend such prestigious schools as “Cambridge” are so pompous and full of themselves, that they can never admit when they’re wrong, even when its staring them in the face.

Particularly when dealing with us steerage.

And as for coherent positions, my position was coherent, until you began twisting it and convoluting it out of any reasonable context so you could more easily insult me, and demean, belittle and mock what you thought…no, make that “hoped” was my faith.

Maybe when the steam wears off you can address my Einstein point. Oh and for apologies, consider it done, now you take care of the one owed Patty C.”

The only steam here is whats being let off the immense bag of hot air that comprises your ego.

As for your Einstein point, I could care less. Once you’ve taken my position and attempted to twist it so you could insult me, my intelligence and what you hoped was my belief system, then being caught in the act try to smugly cover it up with some bs song and dance, then I have little interest in any “points” you may think you need to make with me. I have little respect or tolerance for those who mock people of faith merely for their possession of that faith. If you want to mock what they do that contradicts that faith, then thats one thing. But to mock them merely for the fact that they possess a belief that you do not, is the height of hubris and is akin to racism, and prejudice. You may think yourself the better for it, but I see a small, ugly little person behind such vice.

As for apologizing to Patty C, what would you have me apologize to her for?

For her coming into a blog I was in and insulting me out of the blue,calling me names while demanding I leave without so much as a SINGLE WORD being spoken to her by me?

I should apologize for which part of that?

And as for YOUR so called apology, a smug insincere apology is no apology at all.

Though I will say it seems to me the one who started it would be the one who owes the apology.

I mean if someone walks up to you and punches you in the mouth when you’ve not done anything or said anything at all to them, is it your normal routine to “apologize” to them for their punching you in the mouth?

I thought the puncher, and not the punchee, owed the apology. Even if you hit back, what would you say?

Well, I finally made the swim back to *my* Island, after I skipped bail(ing) Skipper.

One thing about most of us steerage men is that we might not have the station in life but we are *man enough* to acknowledge the need, sometimes, to concede even when the “other side” is *not* the aggrieved party.

However, some steerage men are just a *steer..with.. age* (get it?) and not *man* enough to get on with life, Bro.

Show ‘them’ “elite” what the lower class is made of, man!

SNARK OFF!!

I trust you will *get* the snarky metaphors rollin’ off my tongue-in-cheek this time…

(And all my LE training told me to stay out of domestic disputes because those were the most dangerous confrontations… and look what I now do, in spite of it all! Well, now it is up to the lawyers…you are out-numbered Bro!)

Waynebro you are decent guy–sometimes we just have to ignore some things. Believe me, I learned the hard way and I am likely just as hardheaded as you are–or more so–including my exceeding the stubbornness of most others in our male steerage class.

Well I appreciate your advice, and yes, as I said much earlier tonight, and also wrote Professor Turley in an email, I think I will try to use JILL for an example, and like her, IGNORE Patty C, and her unwarranted attacks.

As for apologizing though, which one of these comments of Patty C’s from last night would you like me to apologize for?

Was it her first comment to me, where she walked in COMPLETELY UNPROVOKED, without my saying so much as a single word to her?

Not interested in your brass pole, or anything else you
imagine passes for ‘genitalia’ – much less humor.

Take a hike. You ain’t got(no)
class”

This was her “ICEBREAKER” comment of the evening, where she walked in, and just said this to me without one word being uttered in her direction.

Should I apolgize for her saying that?

Or was it this one?

“Pardon me. You will kindly respond like a gentleman
– or leave.

And you can take seamus and Thingum Bob Esq with you!

Just because Jill talks trashy doesn’t mean others, like myself, appreciate it. I don’t like that style and I call her on it as well
– mainly because it encourages ‘yahoos’ like you”

Or perhaps you’d like me to apologize for Patty saying this to Jill during her unprovoked attacks on me last night, who also never said a word to her.

Patty C
1, December 13, 2008 at 1:27 am

“Whereas Jill, from what she represents and most of what she speaks about, vaguely represents to having grown up in less than ideal surroundings-like what one might find in a trailer park.

Just like you – ‘trailer trash’. ”

Is that the comment of Patty’s you’d like me to apologize for, or to?

Should I apologize for her insulting Jill and her family upbringing when Jill said not one word to Patty? Is that what I need to apologize for? Perhaps someone can explain to me what gives Patty C the right to insult people like that, who have said not one word to her?

And whats more can someone explain to me why you two are demanding I apologize to her for it?

What did Jill do last night to deserve being called trailer trash by Patty C?

Why doesn’t Patty C owe JILL the apology?

Or me for her unwarranted attacks on me?

Can someone explain that to me? You all being so smart and all.

Or was it this one perhaps, that you’d like me to apologize for, where Patty is apparently threatening me with some sort of legal action?

“Patty C
1, December 12, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Like I said BARTLEBEE, we can do this any time you want.

Give my your lawyers number. I’ll be delighted to speak
with him…

Only this time, I’ll be happy to conference in Buddha
-in a 3-way! Hah!

p.s. mespo may file an ‘amicus’ brief, should the occasion allow…”

Hmmm, an “amicus brief”? I’m being threatened with an “amicus brief”, meaning Mespo is going to use his status as a friend to the court in an attempt to harm or prosecute me in some way?

The women walks into a chat room, starts insulting me and when I DARE to tell her to kiss my butt that constitutes an “AMICUS BRIEF” being filed against me?

For what law does patty C seem to think would be able to do damage to my life, simply because I dared respond to her unprovoked aggressions towards me?

Tell me, I’d love to hear about it. As I am sure so would about 100 news organizations, both local and national. As would my attorney, who’s name and contact information I’ll be glad to provide to anyone threatening some sort of legal action, if they’ll simply send me an email. (not sure my attorney would like his contact information being published in a chat room). Simply email me at waynebro@yahoo.com and I’ll be happy to provide his full contact information so you can file whatever “briefs” that you highly edyoocayted attorney’s and such think are justified for my presence in an online chat room that I’ve not been asked by the owner nor administrator to leave, nor to which there are any rules posted anywhere on the blog. Which is odd considering its a legal blog. But oh well, I am after all in the presence of genius, even if it is self proclaimed, so feel free to drop me an email and I’ll respond immediately upon receipt with my attorney’s full contact information so you can procede with your “legal breifs”. Just make sure you’re not sending him your underwear.

Now..he’s no “Cambridge man” to be sure, but I’ve always considered him the best ambulance chaser this side of the DC line, and I’m sure he’s up to the task of dealing with any sort of legal trickery or skullduggery Patty C, Mespo, or anyone else for that matter, in a pitiful and unethical attempt to prosocute a US citizen over merely responding to unprovoked agression from another blogger in an online chat room. Hell even if it was provoked, which it wasn’t, but even if it was it would be a preposterous case, and would not doubt backfire on the moron dumb enough to try to prosecute it.

And I’m sure the news media would enjoy it too.

Anyway I already said a long time ago this evening that I would follow the ONE person in here who showed a little class, and that was Jill.

Because as you see from the comments above of Patty’s, she horribly attacked Jill out of the blue, without Jill having said ANYTHING AT ALL to her.

She called her TRAILER TRASH, and insulted her family. For NO REASON!

And yet Jill said nothing in return.

She just quietly and with great dignity pleaded for sevelity. And I found that remarkably admirable. So as I told Jill, I shall “try” to ignore any further unwarranted attacks from Patty C.

That’s as close as any sort of apology I’m going to offer for daring to stand up to this vicious, hostile and downright arrogant person.

Paranoia and self pity make poor substitutes for good conversation and spirited debate. Maybe you’d do better on a blog designed for those dedicated to a continual and obsessive defense of even the most gentle slight to their immense egos. That you will not accept any blame for your incredibly rude comments to Patty C tells me more about you than anything contained in your lengthy commentary on the topic of the day.

PS: I am sure your attorney greatly appreciates your less than kind term for his services. But I suspect he understands his client and is fully paid.

Wow. I certainly missed a lot in the past day. My little herd is
‘on the mend’…

As always, thanks, mespo – for being on my side’. You are truly a gentleman and scholar. And a helluva ‘country lawyer’!

Let me make myself clear. Waynebro IS the same ol’ disruptive CMM/BARTLEBEE we all know. No doubt in my mind.

Apparently, the big deal ‘debate site’ isn’t working out. The writings, the multiple rants, the baiting, and the sexual innuendo are unmistakable. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he is responsible for ALL of the recent renewed troll activity. I credit Jill for opening up that Pandora’s Box many months back AND forkeeping it going, despite my objections.
For the record, I was not the one who labeled Jill ‘trailer trash’. She calls herself that. I admit to having taken to noting it when she behaves like ‘trash’, however.

I am purposely and directly addressing you, Jill, because I want you to ‘get it’.

This blog stopped being ‘fun’ when you decided the way to to get the males here to respond to you was by offering a little ‘tease’. This isn’t a ‘singles’ site. Get a date – or ‘whatever’…

I don’t need to hear about anybody’s ‘mojo’ in the marital sack or their fantasies of having ‘some’ in the courtroom, ‘dear Jill’.
Where I come from, the more you brag about how well you ride, the less of an equestrian you are.

I do find it interesting, though, when you then proceed to climb on your soapbox about physical and sexual ‘abuse’ of women (and children). Obviously, you have some issue. This is not the place to begin airing it or to work out your frustration, however. You can’t begin to champion a cause like that until you are ‘whole’.

I hope you get whatever support you need, but in the meantime, I expect you, in particular, to keep a lid on your potty posts.
Thanks in advance,
Patty C

Yawn!
I like a lot of Waynebro’s opinions, just as I like a lot of the stuff from Patty C., Jill and Mespo. It does get tiring though when enough is not enough and a constant defense of one’s position, overlapped by a denigration of one’s putative opponent, goes on ad infinitum. At that point perhaps it is best to leave one’s words as
an establishment of viewpoint and to retire from the field. I have been guilty of the same behavior, but when I have been, I’ve tried to learn from my own visceral combativeness where I’m going off track, sometimes (not enough) I’ve even succeeded at self-regulation.

Paranoia and self pity make poor substitutes for good conversation and spirited debate. Maybe you’d do better on a blog designed for those dedicated to a continual and obsessive defense of blah blah ad nauseum blah blah blah.

PS: I am sure your attorney greatly appreciates your less than kind term for his services. But I suspect he understands his client and is fully blah blahed.”

Whatever cheif. You’re just mad that I didn’t bow to your nose in the air smuggery last night, so now you want to reopen again today by labling me further as paranoid, overdefensive, etc. Yes, maybe I overreacted to Patty’s attacks.

Yet they were nonetheless Patty’s attacks, and so far I don’t see one iota of accountability or owning up to that fact from her or any of you defending her. Not one word about the fact that she launches these attacks then when someone dares respond you all pounce like a gaggle of goading geese.

I said last night several times that I would try to ignore her unwarranted attacks in the future. Just keep in mind when someone attacks you out of the blue, then when you defend yourself and everyone else piles on top of you for that, people have a tendency to continue to stick up for themselves.

So if you want to truly “drop it”, then drop it. And dropping it doesn’t mean coming in the next day to start rehashing it all over again.

I’m done responding to Patty’s attacks. If thats not good enough for you and your insincere apology to me for calling me a stupid coward, (you guys never seem to acknowledge your own faults, just those in the poor bastard who comes in your line of fire) then you can stick it.

I’m done with Patty, and hopefully your guilded saint is done with me.

Oh and as for my “attorney” and my moniker for him? He unlike you has a sense of humor. A real sense of humor, not a smug arrogant one, and is therefore capable of laughing at things like that. Of course, since we’ve been close personal friends for over 15 years, I imagine that has a lot to do with it.

Does your site have a contact page? I’m having problems locating it but, I’d like to shoot you an e-mail.
I’ve got some recommendations for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great site and I look forward to seeing it grow over time.